R GOTHANDARAMAN Vs. CHIEF EDACATIONAL OFFICER DINDIGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants in these writ appeals. THE Respondents in the Writ petitions are the Respondents in these writ appeals. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. THE petitioners are teaching staff. THEy were originally appointed to the school at Kundrakudi under the control of the third respondent. THE relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973. hereinafter referred to as the Act, govern the service position of the petitioners. While the petitioners got inducted into the services, they entered into agreements under Form VII-A prescribed by the Rules under the Act. THE petitioners were earlier in the year 1988 transferred to the school at Kaliimandayam also under the control of the third Respondent. According to the third Respondent that was done taking note of the requests of the petitioners. Subsequently in June, 1990, by the orders impugned in the writ petitions, the petitioners have been re-transferred to the school at Kundrakudi. Before the learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petitions, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the third Respondent has no inherent power of transfer and there being no provision for transfer in the statutory agreements entered into between the parties, the impugned orders of transfer must be struck down. Reliance in this behalf was placed on a pronouncement of a Bench of this Court in T. Chandrasekar v. THE Committee of Management of Pachaiyappa's Trust and others 1 . THE learned single Judge found that the petitioners were transferred from Kundrakudi to Kallimandayam only on their requests as per their letters, pleading family circumstances and they have been transferred back to Kundrakudi again as per the very terms of the said letters, which provided that there could be such re-transfers when the family circumstances eased out. Taking note of these facts, the learned single Judge declined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners. THEse writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) MR. N.S. Sivam, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that there being no inherent power of transfer vested in the third Respondent, the statutory agreements not conferring such power on the third Respondent, the petitioners now working in the school at Kallimandayam cannot be disturbed by the impugned orders of transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioners pressed forth into service the pronouncement of the Bench referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioners also impeached the genuineness of the signature stated to be of the petitioner in one of the writ petitions; in the letter concerned. As against this, MR. R. Gandhi, learned counsel for the third Respondent, would submit that the very appointments of the petitioners were only to the school and there were letters given by the petitioners requesting at Kundrakudi for transfer to the school at Kallimandayam on account of their family circumstances and the petitioners have agreed to be re-transferred to any school under the control of the third Respondent on improvement in their family circumstances and hence there could be re-transfer back to the school at Kundrakudi, and only in implementation of these requests, the transfer earlier and the re-transfer now, have taken place. Learned counsel for the third Respondent wants to distinguish the decision of the Bench referred to above by pointing out the above circumstances.